#kalman barken

[libertariantaoist]

First off the most important issue is the millions of Palestinian refugees kicked out of their real property, a majority of which were bulldozed and replaced with Israeli socialist communes known as “Kibbutzim” (which mostly failed and became privatized “Moshavim”) and Jewish National Fund (JNF) forests. This is the most important issue due to the fact that it’s the most indisputable claim as well as the one affecting the most people and the hardest one to solve due to the entrenchment of the Israelis on that land. Some notable examples of such land are the Tel Aviv University and some of the most elite Tel Aviv neighborhoods.

The second most important issue, and the one that often gets the bulk of the attention, is treatment of Palestinians in Israeli hands (the occupation in the West Bank, legal untermenschen in East Jerusalem, the siege of Gaza, unfair treatment inside Israel).

While clearly this is a major issue, I believe it is a symptom of the conflict, but not its underlying cause, and as long as there is conflict there will be violence. So, while we can, and should pressure Israel to be a lot less violent, we can’t expect an end to a conflict without addressing the underlying issues.

Thirdly, the settlements. While the Palestinian case is strong legally, it is very weak on the basis of natural rights.The central anti-settlement claim, “since we want to make a state here you can’t homestead the land,” is cloaked in terms of “our land.” When asked to explain why it is their land they explain it is their national land, a concept which violates property rights. At times they make a better, albeit still weak, argument that since the purpose of Israelis being there is to oppress them, their homestead claim isn’t valid. As libertarians know, this claim is feeble because property rights aren’t defined by goals and aspirations, regardless of the ill or good of the intent. Additionally, many settlers, especially in the Jordan Valley, are only in that particular area for land they were granted by the government and aren’t particularly concerned who ends up governing the land as long as they can continue on with their lives. Many of them would happily work land whether it be in the Israeli South, or some as yet undefined territory.

The presented solutions to the conflict, can also be broken down into three categories, each with its own benefits and drawbacks. Let’s now turn our anarcho-libertarian examination to these categories.

Firstly, the most popular and worst solution is the two state solution. Not only does this require gross violations of human rights, and a disregard for individual property rights, it deals with the “rights of Israelis” vs the “rights of Palestinians,” rather than human rights. Little to no consideration is given for problems created by the proposed solutions. For example, what happens to a jew who legally bought a house from an Arab, or an Arab who owns property on what will become Israel? This top down solution would displace at the lowest estimates 100,000 innocent people and still not resolve some of the most significant issues. Not to mention, it solves none of the communal national level concerns such as holy sites that will remain an issue. No matter what arrangement politicians reach, religious factions will no doubt be dissatisfied with the results which will inherently destabilize whatever agreement is reached.

The second solution advanced is one that while gaining in popularity, I believe is deeply flawed and that is the idea of one democratic state. The consequences of two populations of more or less equal size wrestling for control of a state apparatus in hopes of damaging the other side, has great potential to be disastrous. Is the best answer really an American style duopoly developing between two tribes who have been in violent conflict for the last 100 years? Encouraging for the 12 million people of the region, the same kind of thinking prevalent in the U.S. of everything hinging on who wins any given election? You can see issues such as the name of the country and holy site policies swinging back and forth from election to election with all the accompanying unrest.

The third, and I believe best, solution which has emanated from a group of mixed Jewish and Arab peace advocates is known as the “two states homeland.” This brilliant bottom up idea can solve many of the aforementioned issues, while also not creating any new ones. Simply put, the plan is to establish two states in the same geographic area, each with its own parliament, citizenship etc. One for Israelis and one for Arabs. Even with a cursory glance, it is easy to see that one of the most pressing issues of how to allow the four million person Palestinian diaspora to return home. While it might not return them to former property, there would be compensations, and a return to their homeland, without having the added concern of how a democracy would marginalize the newly minted minority. This plan also solves two of the other largest issues. With two independent states that occupy the same geography, occupation and settlements are no longer concerns. While not removing the most difficult problem of what to do about holy sites, it is far superior to having a central government who controls every aspect of who can go where when. This leaves only one major unresolved issue, to which I honestly don’t know of a good solution, and that is what kind of worship can be done at each site. This is a situation that, once people have much more latitude in other regards, may end up being resolved by the people concerned. Regardless, this plan brings the most issues to resolution. Besides the obvious advantages of such a solution, the very idea of competing governments offers great possibilities. Smaller minorities would presumably have a choice in what state they wanted to join or even open their own state which could lead to many great outcomes. If this idea is implemented (and it’s the only logical solution so it has a shot) it may be the first crack we get at a testing ground for an ancap world. While it probably wouldn’t look exactly like a Rothbardian dreamscape especially with the Israeli proclivity for an authoritarian state, it could open up new possibilities there and around the world. I sincerely hope that out of this horrific conflict a new dawn of freedom can emerge perhaps even a freedom that can be spread worldwide.

Read More

[iamsaramodig]

På väg in till jobbet i betongcity lyssnade jag på senaste avsnittet av On Being. Konstnären och illustratören Maira Kalman samtalar med Krista Tippet om “vardagliga saker att bli förälskad i“. Just när jag kom upp på Vasagatan från pendeltåget, börjar de prata om träd.

Krista Tippet säger: “Här är en annan rad av dig som jag älskar: “Vi ser träd. Vad mer behöver vi?” Och Maira Kalman svarar: “Det är så sant. Det är tungt att vara ledsen. Och naturligtvis tittar jag alltid på de saker som gör någon mindre ledsen, det vill säga glad, vilket inte är “det vill säga” överhuvudtaget. Så att gå och titta på träd är verkligen en av världens härligheter, och vi säger “var glad!” när vi ser såna saker.

Samtalet löper vidare. De konstaterar bland annat att träd “bara är”. Och Maira Kalman avrundar med att säga: “du vet, löv växer på träd, och fåglar sitter i träd, och fåglar sjunger, och det är ett enda helt vackert paket”.

Eftersom jag har glädje som intention denna måncykel, hajade jag till. Att betrakta träd och bli glad av det? Tja, varför inte? Jag testade med de vinterkala, jämnt och glest utplacerade träden som var det enda organiska material (förutom människorna) som prydde Vasagatans trottoarer. De såg lite lessna och malplacerade ut. Men visst, deras spretiga, levande och lätt anarkistiska (om än beskurna) form var vilsam för ögonen.

Så kom jag fram till Norra Bantorget och parken. Där breder träden ut sig på ett annat sätt. Och där väntade den på mig – glädjen över sk��nheten i kronornas former, barkens olika textur beroende på sort, det harmoniska mötet mellan stammen och marken. Inget träd är det andra likt. Ändå är de fulländade som just de exemplar de är.

När jag började bläddra bland mina bilder till de här raderna om den nyupptäckta källan till glädje, fick jag syn på att sambandet mellan träd och glädje inte är nytt för mig. Jag älskar uppenbarligen att betrakta och fotografera träd med alla deras detaljer och i deras olika sammanhang!

Vill du känna glädje? Pröva att titta på träd! På väg in till jobbet i betongcity lyssnade jag på senaste avsnittet av On Being. Konstnären och illustratören…